ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Atrial Fibrillation Treatment Stratification Based on Artificial Intelligence-Driven Analysis of the Electrophysiological Complexity.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAtrial Fibrillation (AF) treatment strategies are suboptimal and clinical predictors of success are limited. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has arisen as a powerful tool for treatment efficacy prediction.
objectiveWe developed an AI-driven platform for the stratification of patients based on noninvasive Electrocardiographic Imaging (ECGI) biomarkers and clinical parameters to evaluate and predict optimal patient treatment.
methodsWe evaluated 204 patients treated according to clinical guidelines and characterized them at the electrophysiological level using ECGI recordings during AF. ECGI signals were calculated to obtain frequency and rotational biomarkers. Baseline clinical characteristics and treatment after inclusion were registered.
resultsA clustering algorithm was calibrated taking three different variables for 1 year outcome prediction: (1) AF type (paroxysmal or persistent); (2) ECGI complexity score (calculated based on highest dominant frequency, median dominant frequency, and mean rotor time); and (3) type of treatment: rhythm control (drugs, AF ablation) or rate control. The cluster analysis classified patients into five groups: Low electrophysiological complexity patterns were associated with an improved outcome after ablation, regardless of the time duration of the AF. Intermediate complexity scores in paroxysmal AF had a favourable outcome with rhythm control treatments, but not in persistent AF patients. Cluster patterns with higher electrophysiological complexity were associated with a higher probability of AF recurrence, both in paroxysmal and persistent groups. The performance of the algorithm predicting the outcome was (AUC: 0.73 (0.63-0.81)), increasing overall performance with respect to conventional persistent and paroxysmal classification (AUC: 0.58 (0.48-0.68); p < 0.05). This algorithm was evaluated on the 20% test set, obtaining 90% prediction success.
conclusionsAI-driven analysis that combined clinical information with ECGI biomarkers increased the performance of conventional classification methods for AF treatment stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.